TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then there is no reason to impose penalty. After finding that the appellant has become unknowingly party to fraudulent import, the imposition of penalty is unjustified. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of appellant. - Appeal No.C/53596/2014 - FINAL ORDER NO. 52195/2015 - Dated:- 14-7-2015 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., J. For The Appellant : Ms. Vibha Narang, Advocate For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o has given statement under Section 108 admitting the same. The primary adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) upon the appellant holding that the appellant CHA was involved in clearing of prohibited goods. On appeal filed, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to ₹ 10,000/-. Aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the CHA. Had he interacted, he would have been aware of the vital details and would not have become unknowingly party to fraudulent import. It is not a case that the appellant had wrong intent. It is also not a case that the appellant worked as an accomplice. There is no such evidence. 4. When there is no evidence to establish that the appellant had prior knowledge of the goods imported and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
